Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add KevinZai/commander --skill ccc-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KevinZai/commanderWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/kevinzai/commander/ccc-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kevinzai/commander/ccc-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kevinzai/commander/ccc-code-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kevinzai/commander/ccc-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kevinzai/commander/ccc-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00055 | $0.00406 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00162 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00081 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00041 |
Grade A, and why
ccc-code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
$ccc-code-review — alias for $ccc-review
CC Commander · $ccc-code-review · kept so the old command and existing references still resolve.
When to use / when not to
- Use only when the user typed
$ccc-code-reviewor a doc points here. - Everything else goes straight to
$ccc-review; never add review logic to this file.
What happens
- Invoke the canonical skill with the Skill tool:
skill: "commander:ccc-review",args: "$ARGUMENTS". $ccc-reviewtreats a PR URL, file path or pasted diff as a free-form scope and confirms it with one picker before auditing.- On Codex or when the Skill tool cannot load it, tell the user to run
$ccc-review $ARGUMENTSand stop.
Decision points
None here; $ccc-review owns the lens and engine pickers.
Done when
$ccc-reviewwas invoked with the same arguments, or the user was told the exact$ccc-reviewcommand to run.
Guardrails
- Never run a review, write a report or edit code from this alias.
See also
$ccc-review— the review workflow$ccc-qa— test suites and coverage
⚙️ Fable contract: plan before build · verifier ≠ worker · prove before alarm · loops need gates · leave durable state —
rules/fable-method.md
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 3d ago Changed · +18 lines · +13 tokens per session 4922c16515bb
- 1mo ago First seen · 28 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A fb2354d775c1
ccc-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository KevinZai/commander (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 406 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Use when changes affect interactions across multiple modules, involve high-risk areas (authorization/authentication, payments/funds, data deletion/migration, public APIs/cross-service interfaces/security boundaries), or the user requests a review. Review in this order—correctness → requirements → security → simplicity…
pr-review-expert
Tier: POWERFUL Category: Engineering Domain: Code Review / Quality Assurance.
tech-debt-tracker
Scan codebases for technical debt, score severity, track trends, and generate prioritized remediation plans. Use when users mention tech debt, code quality, refactoring priority, debt scoring, cleanup sprints, or code health assessment. Also use for legacy code modernization planning and maintenance cost estimation.
pr
Analyze changes, detect scope issues, and create a well-structured PR.
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
receive-review
Process code review feedback with technical rigor. Activates when the user shares review comments, PR feedback, or asks to address reviewer suggestions.